ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2026
The Dutch patient-based Constant Murley score cannot be used interchangeably with the clinician-based Constant Murley score in shoulder arthroplasty patients.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To find an alternative for the time-consuming Dutch clinician-based Constant Murley score (c-CMS), we assessed its interchangeability with the patient-based CMS (p-CMS) in patients undergoing arthroplasty. Also, we assessed test-retest reproducibility of both CMS versions. Methods: The English p-CMS was translated into Dutch using forward and backward translation. We administered the c-CMS and p-CMS at 2 time points before surgery and 6 months after surgery. Subsequently, we calculated absolute agreement parameters, both between p-CMS and c-CMS, to study interchangeability. For the repeated measurements of c-CMS and p-CMS, agreement was calculated separately to study test-retest reproducibility. Results: We recruited 139 patients from 3 different hospitals. Between total p-CMS and total c-CMS, the 95% limits of agreement (LoAs) were -20.4 to 22.6 with a mean bias of 1.1. For test-retest reproducibility of the c-CMS and the p-CMS, LoAs were -15.1 to 15.7 (mean bias 0.3) and -16.6 to 18.8 (mean bias 1.1), respectively. These LoAs were all wider than the shoulder arthroplasty-specific Minimal Clinically Important Differences found in the literature. Conclusion: The p-CMS cannot be used interchangeably with the c-CMS. In addition, the CMS has become obsolete for quantifying shoulder functionality; shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures with better reproducibility are currently available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.